MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01CB79DB.6E0A7950"
This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer.
------=_NextPart_01CB79DB.6E0A7950
Content-Location: file:///C:/E0C8B227/0806102010OEA86IllinoisMining.htm
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"

This matter having come before the Cour=
t on
the hearing on the petition for administrative review filed by Walter and
Janene Crawford (the Petitioner), which pleadings are parts of the
Court’s record; and the Court, being duly advised and having read the
record, exhibits and evidence and heard the testimony, now enters the follo=
wing
findings of fact, conclusions of law and final order:

2.On=
April
7, 2010, the White County Plan Commission filed a petition for review of the
Permit.At the request of the=
While
County Plan Commission, the petition for review was dismissed on June 21, 2=
010.

3.On=
April
17, 2010, Carolyn S. Sollars and Holly Franscoviak filed a petition for rev=
iew
of the Permit.Carolyn =
S.
Sollars and Holly Franscoviak were defaulted and dismissed from this cause =
on
July 20, 2010 for failure to appear at the prehearing conference held on Ju=
ne
29, 2010.

[2010 OEA 8=
6, page 88
begins]

4.On=
April
16, 2010, Walter and Janene Crawford filed a petition for review of the Per=
mit.

5.Ja=
nene
Crawford appeared at the prehearing conference on June 29, 2010.At that time, she consented to hav=
ing
this matter heard on July 30, 2010.

6.The
final hearing in this matter was held on July 30, 2010.Janene Crawford appeared and prese=
nted evidence;
the IDEM appeared and presented evidence; the Permittee appeared by counsel=
.

7.The
Crawfords live at 8186 N. =
Lowes
Road in Monon Indiana.Their home is located less than &f=
rac12;
mile from the Facility.The
Crawfords have a daughter, Kinzy, who has moderate persistent asthma and
allergic rhinitis, with positive skin tests to multiple aeroallergens.Ms. Crawford has asthma.

8.Ms.
Crawford is concerned about the impact of fugitive dust from the Facility on
her and her daughter’s health.

9.Sh=
e was
unable to identify any legal deficiency in the Permit.

=
p>

10.Ms.
Crawford seeks a requirement that the Permittee plant a tree barrier between
her property and the Facility.

Conclusions
of Law

1. &n=
bsp;
The Office of Environmental Adjudication
(“OEA”) has jurisdiction over the decisions of the Commissioner=
of
the Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”) and=
the
parties to this controversy pursuant to I.C. § 4-21.5-7, et seq.

=

2. &n=
bsp;
Findings of Fact that may be construed as Conclusio=
ns
of Law and Conclusions of Law that may be construed as Findings of Fact are=
so
deemed.

8.Unless a petitione=
r can
prove that the Permittee cannot operate in accordance with the law
because of flaws in the facility plans, allegations that a Permittee mig=
ht
violate the terms of the permit are not sufficient grounds to overturn a
permit.

9.Ms. Crawford has
legitimate concerns.However,=
it is
a violation of the Permit for any fugitive dust to cross the property
boundary.She has not present=
ed
sufficient evidence to show that the Permittee is incapable of complying wi=
th
the terms of the Permit.

10.Further, neither I=
DEM
nor the Office of Environmental Adjudication (“OEA”) may requir=
e an
applicant to include information or to perform actions in excess of that
required by law.See In the Matter of:Objection to the Issuance of Appro=
val
No. AW-5499 Concentrated Animal Feeding Operation, Talara Lykins, Jackson
County, Indiana,Cause No.
05-W-J-3602,2007 OEA 114, aff’d., Marion County Superi=
or
Court Civil Division, Room F-12, Cause No. 49F12-0708-MI-32019 (April 4,
2008).Ms. Crawford requested=
that
the Permittee plant a tree barrier between her property and the Facility.She did not provide any authority =
which
would allow the OEA to grant this request and the presiding ELJ knows of no
such authority.

&nbsp=
; IT
IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that judgment is entered in favor of the Permittee, Illinois Mining
Corporation and the Petition for Review filed by Petitioners is hereby DISMISSED.

&nbsp=
;

&nbsp=
; You are hereby further notified that pu=
rsuant
to provisions of I.C. § 4-21.5-7.5, the Office of Environmental
Adjudication serves as the Ultimate Authority in the administrative review =
of
decisions of the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental
Management.This is a Final O=
rder
subject to Judicial Review consistent with applicable provisions of I.C. &s=
ect;
4-21.5.Pursuant to I.C. &sec=
t;
4-21.5-5-5, a Petition for Judicial Review of this Final Order is timely on=
ly
if it is filed with a civil court of competent jurisdiction within thirty (=
30)
days after the date this notice is served.

=

&=
nbsp; IT
IS SO ORDERED this 6thday of August, 2010 in Indianapolis, IN.